Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (293680)	9/6/2002 12:01:33 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

To acquire oil.....how about to make sure we don;t need to undertake future military action to acquire oil??? Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves on the globe. Its neighbor, Saudi Arabia, which it previously threatened has the largest.....is it imperialism to make sure a madman does not sit astride the oil spigot which regulates the global economy....????

To: Neocon who wrote (293680)	9/6/2002 2:55:55 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"nor do I think that it is all about, nor even mainly about, Iraqi oil. However, to answer your question, no, an imperial adventure to acquire oil is not right. " To think that the "regime change" is not ultimately about oil is an idealistic notion. And although we agree that invading a country to get their oil is imperialistic and not right, I would also support such imperialism if oil were refused to us for purchase at market prices and if such refusal to sell did, in fact, threatened to collapse the US economy and hence the country. "Since Saddam does have designs on Arabian reserves," He may have designs but he well remembers what happened when he tried to achieve them. Note on Naziism.....I was not equating American imperialism with Naziism from the political point of view but rather, to the land and resource grabs in the pursuit of hegemony.